Dept of Forestry says CHP only

This is the reason I kept asking McDonnell direct and pointed questions during his press calls.

This is one time I expect to hold his feet to the fire. I hadn't said much about it lately because I was waiting for it to come out in the State Register. It did on the 15th and it's time to start cranking the vise handle.

Click to expand...

The public hearing date had to be changed from March 2 to March 4 from 1
to 4 PM and will be held at:

Buckingham Agriculture Center Auditorium

13360 West James Anderson Hwy

Buckingham, VA 23921



Ron Jenkins
Assistant State Forester
Policy, Planning and Budget
900 Natural Resources Drive, Suite 800
Charlottesville, VA 22903

Office 434 220 - 9022
Cell 434 531 - 5985
Fax 434 977 -7749
ron.jenkins@dof.virginia.gov

Click to expand...

snip......

The agency is pre-empted. We clearly state this during the rule making process and document our desire to exercise our right in the state forrest. After the rule is promulgated we sue in circuit court. Hopefully even the court costs are recovered from the state agency for violation of preemption.

Would be interesting to see what the courts do with the issue.

My only concern is that the forrester may try to use the college carry litigation, which IIRC, did not go well for gun owners.

Click to expand...

Thundar wrote:

Click to expand...

snip......

The agency is pre-empted. We clearly state this during the rule making process and document our desire to exercise our right in the state forrest. After the rule is promulgated we sue in circuit court. Hopefully even the court costs are recovered from the state agency for violation of preemption.

Would be interesting to see what the courts do with the issue.

My only concern is that the forrester may try to use the college carry litigation, which IIRC, did not go well for gun owners.

Click to expand...

Actually no, state agencies are not preempted - localities (municipalities) and their agencies are so preempted.

§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.
In short, the state has not addressed the issue of state agencies. The GA itself by Joint Committee rule made the changes regarding carry in the GAB and Capital Bldg without any change in the statutes.

This very issue that is being addressed by some with the Governor and Attorney General.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Grapeshot wrote:

Thundar wrote:

Click to expand...

snip......

The agency is pre-empted. We clearly state this during the rule making process and document our desire to exercise our right in the state forrest. After the rule is promulgated we sue in circuit court. Hopefully even the court costs are recovered from the state agency for violation of preemption.

Would be interesting to see what the courts do with the issue.

My only concern is that the forrester may try to use the college carry litigation, which IIRC, did not go well for gun owners.

Click to expand...

Actually no, state agencies are not preempted - localities (municipalities) and their agencies are so preempted.

§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.
In short, the state has not addressed the issue of state agencies. The GA itself by Joint Committee rule made the changes regarding carry in the GAB and Capital Bldg without any change in the statutes.

This very issue that is being addressed by some with the Governor and Attorney General.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Whuh? Huh? The statute defines the term, "locality" as including all departments and agencies of the Commonwealth. The statehas "addressed the issue of state agencies", rightthere in the statute. That litigation over GMU went badly because the pro-se plaintiff didn't know what to sue over or how to structure his case. He didn't understand the technicalities of "causes of action", and he didn't understand civil procedure. He did not fail because the law wasn't on his side. That's all in my not-so-humble opinion, of course.

And where's the"pre-emption" thing coming from. There is no"pre-emption"- that only occurs when governments are parallel and one exercises a function to the disparagement of the powers of the other.This is absolutely not about "pre-emption". When an entity which is something that the state created, such as a municipal corporation (cities and counties), a stock corporation, or an agency or department, the people running that creation have only the powers that the Commonwealth granted, either by charter or by general law. Anything they do beyond those powers is legally void. Not "pre-empted", void. (The technical term is, "ultra vires".)

If it were merely pre-empted, that would mean that the act really IS something, and it is only limited in its effect by some other act having more power. We're talking about acts that have zero legal power and effect because they were done without authority.

State agencies, just like municipalities, have only the powers actually granted. Just because someone's been appointed "state forester" doesn't mean he'ssuddenly a law unto himself.

Click to expand...

this story is why all gun carriers should work together.oc or permit holders,together we stand,if not we fall

Click to expand...

ggd276 wrote:

this story is why all gun carriers should work together.oc or permit holders,together we stand,if not we fall

Click to expand...

Well..yeah. It's a good philosophy, but it'll never happen.
The National Park change has really pulled a seam among gun owners. I'm not sure how far yet but am finding out pretty quickly.

The problem is that NP's mean different things to different people.
In Central Va, they're nothing but a few battlefields that Soccer Moms do their daily walks in.

In Yorktown and NoVA, people have to pass through them to go other places. The Skyline drive is the only meaningful one to a lot of folks in the mountains and further in the mountains and near NC where my farm is, they don't exist except around the lake.

Same thing with the State Forests.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot wrote:

peter nap wrote:

ggd276 wrote:

this story is why all gun carriers should work together.oc or permit holders,together we stand,if not we fall

Click to expand...

Well..yeah. It's a good philosophy, but it'll never happen.
The National Park change has really pulled a seam among gun owners. I'm not sure how far yet but am finding out pretty quickly.

The problem is that NP's mean different things to different people.
In Central Va, they're nothing but a few battlefields that Soccer Moms do their daily walks in.

In Yorktown and NoVA, people have to pass through them to go other places. The Skyline drive is the only meaningful one to a lot of folks in the mountains and further in the mountains and near NC where my farm is, they don't exist except around the lake.

Same thing with the State Forests.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure of this as you are Peter. Took a long time to get where we are now and will take some time and acceptance to regain the lost mileage. I get more of a feeling that the rift is beginning to heal - slowly but gaining some momentum.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

I've gotten chewed out by OV members as well as a Timberframer I know:lol:

And we didn't have anything to do with it other than support VCDL.

I hope it dies down. What I'm seeing mostly are people that don't cross NP land and only see a quarter acre park here and there.

Click to expand...

Tomahawk wrote:

I echo Phillip's question, how does this cause a rift between gunowners?

Click to expand...

Good question but there seem to be a bunch that are flat against carry in NP's.

One Timber farmer that I've known for several years said it was stupid, irresponsible and endangered his second amendment rights.

Other comments have been a little less blunt but just as objectionable.

The simple fact is there isn't complete agreement among gun owners over anything.

Now exactly why some people feel the way they do over National Parks, I haven't a clue and I haven't pushed the issue. My tolerance level has just about hit zero with a lot of folks lately and this is one more set of gripes I don't want to hear about.

It's the law now. The time to have raised a stink was a long time ago. I happen to think it went fine.

Click to expand...